|
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/3/151410/5652Dems to Goodling: Nice Try...Now Get in Here
by MLDB
Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:22:18 PM PDT
House Dems are still pushing for Monica Goodling to testify. Up to this point she (through her attorney) has taken "the fifth" as a blanket excuse not to testify.
Today, House Dems (John Conyers and Linda Sanchez, specifically) said not so fast:
Today, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA) sent a letter to the Attorney General's Special Counsel and White House Liaison Monica Goodling, through her attorney John M. Dowd, requesting her cooperation in closed-door interviews in connection with the ongoing US Attorney scandal.
"But wait," you say, "she's taken the fifth. Those dirty nasty politic-playing Dems are just ignoring her constitutional rights."
Unfortunately for Monica, there is precedent that says she can still be called to testify: (emphasis mine)
"On behalf of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, we write to request that your client, Ms. Goodling, voluntarily appear to be interviewed by our staff in the next week and to discuss the justification for her apparent decision to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege to questions relating to her role in the termination of several United States Attorneys and the Department's response to requests by the Congress for information relating to the terminations.
We have reviewed Ms. Goodling's declaration and the letters you sent to us and Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we are concerned that several of the asserted grounds for refusing to testify do not satisfy the well-established bases for a proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination. In addition, of course, the Fifth Amendment privilege, under long-standing Supreme Court precedents, does not provide a reason to fail to appear to testify; the privilege must be invoked by the witness on a question-by-question basis. "
Ahh...the plot sickens...for now she may actually be compelled and testify to things that may incriminate others! More from House Dems:
"Even with full Court-ordered immunity, a witness is required, under penalty of perjury, to tell the full truth. As we are sure the Department of Justice, in particular, would agree, it would be extremely poor public policy if a witness were permitted to be excused from testifying simply on the basis of her concern that truthful testimony would not be credited by responsible prosecutors and that she could be subject to an unwarranted perjury prosecution. Neither the Department nor the Congress could operate properly if witnesses were free to disregard their duty to provide truthful testimony on this basis. In any event, it is particularly inappropriate in this situation, where the Congress makes no prosecutorial decisions and any decision to prosecute would have to be made by the Department of Justice, which employs your client. "
They get that the administration is, once again, trying to pervert the entire process...and they're not taking it. For good measure they pull in Sampson's testimony to drive the stake in their argument:
"We note that Mr. Kyle Sampson, the Attorney General's former chief of staff who worked closely with Ms. Goodling on these matters, advised the Senate recently under oath that he knew of no valid basis for her assertion. If there is no valid basis, we will want to afford her an opportunity (as several other Department employees have agreed to take) to answer in a straight-forward fashion in a private, confidential setting all questions relating to her knowledge about the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, the role in these terminations of the White House with which she served as liaison and the Department's explanation about these matters to the Congress. "
This could be fun. Popcorn anyone?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
